BMI the Runnymede Hospital Newapproachcomprehensive Report

BMI Healthcare Limited BMI The Runnymede Hospital Quality Report Guildford Road, Ottershaw, Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 0RQ. Tel: 01932 877800 Website: www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/hospitals/ Date of inspection visit: 1-3 August 2016 bmi-the-runnymede-hospital Date of publication: 25/01/2017 This report describes our judgement of the quality of care at this hospital. It is based on a combination of what we found when we inspected, information from our ‘Intelligent Monitoring’ system, and information given to us from patients, the public and other organisations. Ratings Overall rating for this hospital Good ––– Medical care Good ––– Surgery Good ––– Outpatients and diagnostic imaging Good ––– 1 BMI The Runnymede Hospital Quality Report 25/01/2017 Summary of findings Letter from the Chief Inspector of Hospitals We carried out a comprehensive inspection of BMI The Runnymede Hospital on 1-3 August 2016 as part of our national programme to inspect and rate all independent hospitals. We inspected the core services of medical care, surgery, and outpatients and diagnostic imaging as these represented the activity undertaken by the provider, BMI Healthcare, at this location. We rated medical care, surgery and outpatients and diagnostic imaging as good. Are services safe at this hospital? • We saw evidence of comprehensive and detailed investigations into incidents and complaints with learning appropriately shared throughout the hospital to improve standards of care and avoid recurrence. Staff understood the duty of candour and we saw evidence of this in practice. • Staff recognised and responded to changing levels of risk for the patient in line with current guidance and best practice. • There were clearly defined and embedded systems to keep patients safe, with staff demonstrating knowledge of safeguarding and an understanding of referral processes. The Director of Clinical Services was the safeguarding lead for adults and children. • There were effective handovers between shifts with information about patients being shared appropriately to ensure continuity of care. Nursing handovers took place three times per day and there was a formal handover between the RMOs who undertook regular ward rounds. • There was a service level agreement with the local NHS hospital which allowed for the transfer of patients who needed additional care. Are services effective at this hospital? • Staff worked to national guidance and followed best practice standards to deliver consistently good quality care to patients, which the hospital monitored to ensure consistency of practice. • The role of the medical advisory committee was clear, with comprehensive paperwork circulated in advance so that members could be fully prepared. We saw minutes which demonstrated robust discussions of policy, shared learning and appropriate challenges • Mandatory training compliance was high across the hospital, with staff able to access additional training for personal development with the support of their line manager. • Although there was no dedicated pain team, staff had received specialist training and were able to discuss anticipated pain levels with patients in advance of their surgery. Patients told us their pain had been well managed. • There was a thorough system for managing the review and granting of practising privileges which ensured there was appropriate clinical and managerial oversight of this. • We reviewed patient records and noted that informed consent was clearly documented, with details of risks and benefits being discussed with patients in a manner which could be easily understood. Are services caring at this hospital? • Patients and their relatives described the care they received at the hospital in very positive terms, with both clinical and non-clinical staff understanding the need for privacy and dignity and taking steps to ensure this. • Patients knew the name of the nurse who was looking after them, and we saw how staff made the effort to include relatives in the care of patients and explained to them what was happening. • The hospital made arrangements to allow parents to stay with their child overnight, and we observed staff being particularly gentle and reassuring with children undergoing procedures. Are services responsive at this hospital? 2 BMI The Runnymede Hospital Quality Report 25/01/2017 Summary of findings • Appointments were offered promptly to patients with flexibility to suit their preferences as far as possible. Patients told us they were seen on time. • Although the hospital saw very few patients with dementia, all staff had been trained in dementia awareness and were sensitive to the needs of patients living with dementia. • There was a clear process for managing urgent admissions which allowed for better planning and a more effective use of staff time. • The complaints process was well publicised and patients who chose to complain were treated compassionately throughout the process. Senior managers would invite the patient in to the hospital for a meeting, and we saw evidence that managers had visited a patient in their home when the patient did not wish to return to the hospital. • Provision was made to meet the individual needs of patients, including a hearing loop at reception for patients with a hearing disability, a list of languages that different staff members spoke, an interpreting service and careful planning of theatre lists to reduce anxiety for patients with a learning disability. Are services well led at this hospital? • Staff were aware of the overall BMI strategy as well as the local mission statement and understood how it applied to their role and work in the hospital. • The senior management team was highly regarded by staff who told us they found them visible, approachable and supportive. • The registered manager was on annual leave at the time of the inspection but this did not impact upon the smooth and effective running of the hospital. The overall leadership and culture was not dependant on a single individual but continued to be demonstrated by the management team in the director’s absence. • The management team had taken steps to address the difficulties around recruitment and retention of staff by researching salaries across their independent competitors and NHS trusts and ensuring there was pay parity, and by providing training and development opportunities to retain experienced staff. • There was an effective system of governance with departmental meetings and a clinical governance committee with oversight by a well-managed and well attended medical advisory committee. • There was a culture of transparency and honesty amongst staff, who told us that managers actively encouraged them to report incidents. Staff told us they felt valued and respected by their leaders. • There were plans to develop medical services with the provision of four dedicated medical beds. Our key findings were as follows: • There were effective systems to keep patients safe and to allow staff to learn and improve from incidents. • The hospital was visibly clean and we saw evidence that policies were implemented and monitored to prevent the spread of infection. Where audits had shown the need for improvement (for example, clinical staff being bare below the elbows), we saw measures had been put in place to improve performance. • The process for obtaining consent from patients was clear and ensured that staff followed national guidelines and met legal requirements. • Appointments were arranged so that patients could access care when they needed it. • Care was delivered in line with national guidelines and BMI corporate policy. • Staffing levels were adequate, with some vacancies which were managed through the use of bank or agency staff to ensure that there was no impact on patient care. There were robust arrangements to ensure that staff had the required training and skills to do their jobs. • The leadership had the confidence and respect of their staff, who felt supported and motivated by them to provide the best possible care for patients. • There was appropriate management of quality and governance through departmental meetings and committees with regular reports to the medical advisory group for comment, debate and decision. Managers were able to identify risks and challenges within the hospital and were able to escalate and take action as required. 3 BMI The Runnymede Hospital Quality Report 25/01/2017 Summary of findings We saw several areas of outstanding practice including: • The working of the medical advisory committee, with engagement from members, strong leadership from the chair and an effective working relationship between the chair and both the executive director and director of clinical services. However, there were also areas where the provider needs to make improvements. Importantly, the provider should: • Ensure that the flooring in all clinical areas is fit for purpose. • Ensure clinical staff who assess children are trained in safeguarding children level three. • Ensure that the governance policy is up-to-date. • Consider improving the environment for children in the outpatients department so that it is child-friendly. • Consider providing written information to service users for whom English is not their first language Professor Sir Mike Richards Chief Inspector of Hospitals 4 BMI The Runnymede Hospital Quality Report 25/01/2017 Summar y of findings Summary of findings Our judgements about each of the main services Service Rating Why have we given this rating? Medical care Good ––– Overall, we rated medical care

Load more